The Battle over Dyslexia • Hacker News Board

Re: The Battle over Dyslexia

#21

Post by danShumway » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

I object a tiny bit to the article's assertion that inequality is the category's fault.

If we got rid of dyslexia as a category, there is still going to have to be prioritization between different kids based on their relative abilities, there are still going to need to be tests to determine whether someone is struggling enough to need free assistance and access to special resources. If you just get rid of the category but don't address the systemic problems of people being able to pay for diagnosis, then you haven't solved anything. Because that category doesn't go away just because it's called something else. The category is, "who is getting special access to resources, and who is considered functional enough to leave where they are?"

It's the prioritization and diagnosis that sounds broken, not the word.

What these people should be campaigning for is to expand dyslexia to cover more kids who don't fit into the tidy, innacurate IQ box, and to set up more impartial diagnosis methods that aren't as subject to monetary abuse. The dyslexia critics are quick to point out that they're not trying to get rid of resources, they're trying to expand access. But the only way that getting rid of designations would be an equalizer is if it's exactly the scenario that dyslexic kids/parents are worried about -- that nobody gets resources or special attention any more; that the category itself stops existing.

If these researchers genuinely do want to help people, then I don't get what their end goal is -- it sounds like they're just playing pedantic word games. Just expand access, why is worth worrying about what word people use?

I mean, what should we call the category that describes, "child with a reading disability that needs special attention and extra government resources from the limited budget we have?" How about the word that's already widely used that pretty much everybody already understands? How is it helpful to anyone to have this fight instead of just expanding the existing category to fit more people?

Re: The Battle over Dyslexia

#22

Post by topkai22 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 8:37 PM UTC

powersnail wrote: post #13

The debate seems to be around whether the word dyslexia should be used, but the condition --- however named --- exists anyway. The proposed phrase "struggling with reading comprehension" is no less broad, or actually more broad, than _dyslexia_, and in my opinion brings no additional value to the situation. I've known a person diagnosed with Dyslexia, and he was simultaneously one of the most well-read, eloquent pers…

The article is talking about two things simultaneously that really need should be talked about separately, or at least in order- the technical criteria for diagnosing an learning disability and the policy response to it.

It might be that any reading difficulty, whether it is someone who test to a high IQ reading below expectation or just generalized below grade level, has the same cause/treatment. It doesn't make it any less important to identify, treat, and accommodate it.

This article talks about some specific, strong policy responses that sound unique to the UK and are very expensive. In the US, a family member was diagnosed with dyslexia in early high school and all that was provided was 30% more time on tests. And you know what? It was enough to let him significantly increase his grades. In his advanced classes he'd consistently been the only person in his class to not finish timed tests, not because he didn't know the material but because he was a slower reader (and writer) than the rest of the class.

The article seems to want to do away with the diagnosis of "dyslexia" entirely, because it has lead to inequities in the past, rather than revamp it to be more inclusive of general reading comprehension issues. That seems wrong to me. Dyslexia and other educational disability diagnoses provide a "cheat sheet" for more individualized education and have value. That it is more a symptom than a disease in and of itself doesn't make it any less real for people afflicted.

The exact policy response (special schools, extra tutoring, or just extra time on tests) are far more debatable, especially given the limited resources of any educational system. I wish the article had given more thought to it not being an all or nothing change.

I really like powersnail's comparisons to physical ailments. We understand that many causes may lead to a single symptom- for example, being wheelchair bound. Yet that symptom is real and worthy of accommodation.

Re: The Battle over Dyslexia

#23

Post by bjo590 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 8:44 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #16

bjo590 wrote: post #14

> The method for diagnosing dyslexia, known as the discrepancy model, was relatively straightforward: test a child’s IQ and their reading age, and if there was a discrepancy between the two – average-to-high IQ, low literacy – that child was dyslexic. Elliott felt unsure about these assessments. The children he tested for dyslexia all struggled to read and write – that much was clear – but their literacy difficulties…

We do have a term: slow to learn to read. We don't need dyslexia or some more specific term unless those terms can be used for better treatment. In this case dyslexia is too specific: kids who don't fit the definition are being actively harmed because the treatment would help them just as much as it fit those who it helps. It may well be dyslexia (or a more specific term) may mean some other treatment can be helpful…

> We do have a term: slow to learn to read.

There are dozens of reasons a child can be slow to learn how to read. They could have not have access to education. They could has poor eye sight. They could be malnourished. They could have difficulties learning in general. Dyslexia means "Slow to learn how to read, despite no obvious influencing factors." It's a bit of a catch-all. There might be treatments for dyslexic children that also help other children learn how to read, but it's likely that non-dyslexic children will need treatments that will not apply to dyslexic children.

Dyslexia has more than 3 million cases in the US every year. It's common. When given the right treatments their quality of life can be improved greatly. I do not want to remove the classification of dyslexic, because it might jeopardize the way those children receive treatment.

EDIT: "Dyslexia has more than 3 million cases in the US every year." You can see the dyslexia in my writing style right there....

Re: The Battle over Dyslexia

#24

Post by bob33212 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 8:58 PM UTC

I was never diagnosed, but I was a very slow reader in first grade and my daughter was exactly the same. The problem is that we read 3 words at a time when most people only read 1 word at a time. It takes longer to get good at but once you do you are a faster reader.

Re: The Battle over Dyslexia

#25

Post by bluGill » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:08 PM UTC

bjo590 wrote: post #23

bluGill wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do have a term: slow to learn to read. We don't need dyslexia or some more specific term unless those terms can be used for better treatment. In this case dyslexia is too specific: kids who don't fit the definition are being actively harmed because the treatment would help them just as much as it fit those who it helps. It may well be dyslexia (or a more specific term) may mean some other treatment can be helpful…

> We do have a term: slow to learn to read. There are dozens of reasons a child can be slow to learn how to read. They could have not have access to education. They could has poor eye sight. They could be malnourished. They could have difficulties learning in general. Dyslexia means "Slow to learn how to read, despite no obvious influencing factors." It's a bit of a catch-all. There might be treatments for dyslexic c…

Dyslexia also has an IQ component which means those with low IQ are not dyslexic even if they otherwise have the same symptoms.

Perhaps the definition needs to change?

Note the above is from the article which is focused on the UK. It could be different in other countries.

Re: The Battle over Dyslexia

#26

Post by slg » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:09 PM UTC

bjo590 wrote: post #14

> The method for diagnosing dyslexia, known as the discrepancy model, was relatively straightforward: test a child’s IQ and their reading age, and if there was a discrepancy between the two – average-to-high IQ, low literacy – that child was dyslexic. Elliott felt unsure about these assessments. The children he tested for dyslexia all struggled to read and write – that much was clear – but their literacy difficulties…

Another dyslexic here, I completely agree with your assessment of the situation and while the article mentions it I don't think it fully grasps it. The definition of dyslexia is basically any difficulty reading that isn't associated with intelligence, eyesight, or education. It is an umbrella definition for a wide variety of both named and unnamed conditions. Of course there isn't going to be a universal way to treat dyslexia because there is not one single cause. Spending extra effort focusing on teaching a dyslexic student is going to help because extra direct teaching to any student is going to help them learn.

Everyone learns slightly differently and that is even more true for students with learning disabilities. A one size fits all approach doesn't work whether we are talking about dyslexic students or the entire student population.

Re: The Battle over Dyslexia

#27

Post by bjo590 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:11 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #25

bjo590 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We do have a term: slow to learn to read. There are dozens of reasons a child can be slow to learn how to read. They could have not have access to education. They could has poor eye sight. They could be malnourished. They could have difficulties learning in general. Dyslexia means "Slow to learn how to read, despite no obvious influencing factors." It's a bit of a catch-all. There might be treatments for dyslexic c…

Dyslexia also has an IQ component which means those with low IQ are not dyslexic even if they otherwise have the same symptoms. Perhaps the definition needs to change? Note the above is from the article which is focused on the UK. It could be different in other countries.

> Dyslexia also has an IQ component which means those with low IQ are not dyslexic even if they otherwise have the same symptoms.

A person with IQ 100 (or whatever the mean IQ is) learning to read slower than average is different than a person with IQ 60 learning to read slower than average. You cannot completely remove the IQ component.

Re: The Battle over Dyslexia

#28

Post by slg » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #16

bjo590 wrote: post #14

> The method for diagnosing dyslexia, known as the discrepancy model, was relatively straightforward: test a child’s IQ and their reading age, and if there was a discrepancy between the two – average-to-high IQ, low literacy – that child was dyslexic. Elliott felt unsure about these assessments. The children he tested for dyslexia all struggled to read and write – that much was clear – but their literacy difficulties…

We do have a term: slow to learn to read. We don't need dyslexia or some more specific term unless those terms can be used for better treatment. In this case dyslexia is too specific: kids who don't fit the definition are being actively harmed because the treatment would help them just as much as it fit those who it helps. It may well be dyslexia (or a more specific term) may mean some other treatment can be helpful…

Personally getting diagnosed with dyslexia was a huge help to me. Like the article mentions it allows a mindset change when you can put a name to why you can't do something despite a tremendous amount of effort that other people can seemingly do easily. It also becomes a valuable tool to help protect yourself when needed. There were multiple times in my elementary and middle school years in which the ADA needed to be evocated on my behalf in defense against two specific bad teachers I had over those years. I wouldn't have gotten the accommodations and help I needed if the initial diagnose was just "slow to learn to read".

Side note, this was only possible because my parents knew the system, my mom was a teacher, and they had the resources and wherewithal to fight on my behalf. I can certainly see how not having that helps contribute to the inequality talked about in the article. I can also see how parents looking for any advantage for their child might abuse that system. However I don't think the potential for abuse warrants throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Re: The Battle over Dyslexia

#29

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #26

bjo590 wrote: post #14

> The method for diagnosing dyslexia, known as the discrepancy model, was relatively straightforward: test a child’s IQ and their reading age, and if there was a discrepancy between the two – average-to-high IQ, low literacy – that child was dyslexic. Elliott felt unsure about these assessments. The children he tested for dyslexia all struggled to read and write – that much was clear – but their literacy difficulties…

Another dyslexic here, I completely agree with your assessment of the situation and while the article mentions it I don't think it fully grasps it. The definition of dyslexia is basically any difficulty reading that isn't associated with intelligence, eyesight, or education. It is an umbrella definition for a wide variety of both named and unnamed conditions. Of course there isn't going to be a universal way to treat…

[deleted]

Re: The Battle over Dyslexia

#30

Post by Someone » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

bjo590 wrote: post #23

bluGill wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do have a term: slow to learn to read. We don't need dyslexia or some more specific term unless those terms can be used for better treatment. In this case dyslexia is too specific: kids who don't fit the definition are being actively harmed because the treatment would help them just as much as it fit those who it helps. It may well be dyslexia (or a more specific term) may mean some other treatment can be helpful…

> We do have a term: slow to learn to read. There are dozens of reasons a child can be slow to learn how to read. They could have not have access to education. They could has poor eye sight. They could be malnourished. They could have difficulties learning in general. Dyslexia means "Slow to learn how to read, despite no obvious influencing factors." It's a bit of a catch-all. There might be treatments for dyslexic c…

“Dyslexia has more than 3 million cases in the US every year.”

If interpreted as “3 million _new_ cases every year, and dyslexia being incurable, with a life expectancy of 70 years, that would mean way over half the population of the USA would be dyslexic.

I seriously doubt that. So, what do you mean by “every year”?